Internet As Chandelier
[The Infamous Chandelier Diatribe of 1990]
[chandel2/wp]
-------------------ORIGINAL MESSAGE--------------------------
Hart undoubtedly saw academia as a series of dark brown dream
shapes, disorganized, nightmarish, each with its set of rules
for nearly everything: style of writing, footnoting, limited
subject matter, and each with little reference to each other.
-------------------------REPLY----------------------------------
What he wanted to see was knowledge in the form of a chandelier,
with each subject area powered by the full intensity of the flow
of information, and each sending sparks of light to other areas,
which would then incorporate and reflect them to others, a never
ending flexion and reflection, an illumination of the mind, soul
and heart of Wo/Mankind as could not be rivalled by a diamond of
the brightest and purest clarity.
Instead, he saw petty feudal tyrants, living in dark poorly lit,
poorly heated, well defended castles: living on a limited diet,
a diet of old food, stored away for long periods of time, salted
or pickled or rotted or fermented. Light from the outside isn't
allowed in, for with it could come the spears and arrows of life
and the purpose of the castle was to keep the noble life in, and
all other forms of life out. Thus the nobility would continue a
program of inbreeding which would inevitably be outclassed by an
entirely random reflexion of the world's gene pool.
A chandelier sends light in every direction, light of all colors
and intensities. No matter where you stand, there are sparkles,
some of which are aimed at you, and you alone, some of which are
also seen by others: yet, there is no spot of darkness, neither
are there spots of overwhelming intensity, as one might expect a
sparkling source of lights to give off. Instead, the area is an
evenly lit paradise, with direct and indirect light for all, and
at least a few sparkles for everyone, some of which arrive, pass
and stand still as we watch.
But the system is designed to eliminate sparkles, reflections or
any but the most general lighting. Scholars are encouraged to a
style and location of writing which guarantee that 99 and 44 one
hundredths of the people who read their work will be colleagues,
already a part of that inbred nobility of their fields.
We are already aware that most of our great innovations are made
from leaps from field to field, that the great thinkers apply an
item here in this field which was gleaned from that field: thus
are created the leaps which create new fields which widen fields
of human endeavor in general.
Yet, our petty nobles, cased away in their casements, encased in
their tradition, always reject the founding of these new fields,
fearing their own fields can only be dimmed by comparison. This
is true, but only by their own self-design. If their field were
open to light from the outside, then the new field would be part
of their field, but by walling up the space around themselves, a
once new and shining group of enterprising revolutionaries could
only condemn themselves to awaiting the ravages of time, tarnish
and ignorance as they become ignorant of the outside world while
the outside world becomes ignorant of them.
So, I plead with you, for your sake, my sake, for everyone's, to
open windows in your mind, in your field, in your writing and in
your thinking; to let illumination both in and out, to come from
underneath and from behind the bastions of your defenses, and to
embrace the light and the air, to see and to breathe, to be seen
and to be breathed by the rest of Wo/Mankind.
Let your light reflect and be reflected by the other jewels in a
crown of achievement more radiant than anything we have ever had
the chance to see or to be before. Join the world!
[chandel2.txt]
A Re-Visitation to the Chandelier by Michael S. Hart
Every so often I get a note from a scholar with questions and
comments about the Project Gutenberg Edition of this or that.
Most of the time this appears to be either idle speculation--
since there is never any further feedback about passages this
or that edition does better in the eye of particular scholars
or the feedback is of the "holier than thou" variety in which
the scholar claims to have found errors in our edition, which
the scholar then refuses to enumerate.
As for the first, there can certainly be little interest in a
note that appears, even after follow-up queries, of that idle
brand of inquiry.
As to the second, we are always glad to receive a correction,
that is one of the great powers of etext, that corrections be
made easily and quickly when compared to paper editions, with
the corrections being made available to those who already had
the previous editions, at no extra charge.
However, when someone is an expert scholar in a field they do
have a certain responsibility to have their inquiries be some
reasonable variety, with a reasonable input, in order to have
a reasonable output. To complain that there is a problem w/o
pointing out the problem has a rich and powerful vocabulary I
do not feel is appropriate for this occasion. We have put an
entirely out-of-proportion cash reward on these errors at one
time or another and still have not received any indications a
scholar has actually ever found them, which would not be more
difficult than finding errors in any other etexts, especially
ones not claiming an beginning accuracy of only 99.9%.
However, if these corrections WERE forthcoming, then the 99.9
would soon approach 99.95, which is the reference error level
referred to several times in the Library of Congress Workshop
on Electronic Text Proceedings.
On the other hand, just as the Project Gutenberg's efficiency
would drop dramatically if we insisted our first edition of a
book were over 99.5% accurate, so too, should efficiency drop
dramatically if we were ever to involve ourselves in any type
of discussion resembling "How many angels can dance on a pin-
head." The fact is, that our editions are NOT targeted to an
audience specifically interested in whether Shakespeare would
have said:
"To be or not to be"
"To be, or not to be"
"To be; or not to be"
"To be: or not to be"
"To be--or not to be"
This kind of conversation is and should be limited to the few
dozen to few hundred scholars who are properly interested. A
book designed for access by hundreds of millions cannot spend
that amount of time on an issue that is of minimal relevance,
at least minimal to 99.9% of the potential readers. However,
we DO intend to distribute a wide variety of Shakespeare, and
the contributions of such scholars would be much appreciated,
were it ever given, just as we have released several editions
of the Bible, Paradise Lost and even Aesop's Fables.
In the end, when we have 30 different editions of Shakespeare
on line simulateously, this will probably not even be worthy,
as it hardly is today, of a footnote. . .I only answer out of
respect for the process of creating these editions as soon as
possible, to improve the literacy and education of the masses
as soon as possible.
For those who would prefer to see that literacy and education
continue to wallow in the mire, I can only say that a silence
on your part creates its just reward. Your expertise dies an
awful death when it is smothered by hiding your light under a
bushel, as someone whom is celebrated today once said:
Matthew 5:15
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on
a
candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Mark 4:21
And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a
bushel,
or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?
Luke 8:16
No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel,
or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that
they which enter in may see the light.
Luke 11:33
No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret
place,
neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which
come
in may see the light.